Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 15
CNNW 7
CSPAN2 4
KQED (PBS) 2
CSPAN 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 74
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 74 (some duplicates have been removed)
such as al-qaeda and others that they are going to have to live witness because there is not any way to get rid of them. >> i see the mideast deteriorating. i think the last four years has been a failure by the obama administration to realistically to assess the threat that growing. arab spring we didn't see coming but after that the administration had a hands off policy. when they were trying to pull khadafy out libya came for a killing zone. if it weren't for secretary clinton and ambassador rice pushing obama, it would have been worse. we need to be training a libyan army to replace the militias. i went in september of last year with marco rubio and john mccain and myself went to libya. we came back and said the biggest threat to libya making it is these militias. we need to help the libyans train a national army. they were willing to pay for it. in egypt we really led from behind. this idea of having a hands off policy toward syria is about to blochb the whole region up. the war is coming to israel. it's affecting turkey and other places. so i believe that if they don't lead from the fr
to the salafists and al qaeda, yeah. they are a muslim brotherhood government which is why morsi had the leverage to negotiate the cease-fire. >> mika, a lot of interesting things, talking about foreign policy going on here at home, talking about who the next secretary of state may be, john mccain said, along with lindsey graham and several others, who said they were going to fight susan rice tooth and nail, that sort of changed over the weekend, didn't it? >> that appears to be changing just a tad bit. heilmann, you wrote about it. senator mccain is softening his attacks on u.n. ambassador susan rice after vowing to block her potential nomination as secretary of state. republicans claim ambassador rice deliberately misled the country in the aftermath of the september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. but rice says that she's not to blame, arguing she relied on the talking points from the intelligence community. although mccain had threatened a senate filibuster earlier this month, he's now open to meeting directly with miss rice. >> is there anything that ambassador rice can do to c
there was clearly counter information that affirmed that this was a terrorist attack orchestrated by an al qaeda affiliated organization. >> by now you know the story. rice intimated a cheesy anti-islam film caused the murderous rampage at the consulate in benghazi, libya. not true. her assertion on several sunday talk shows was okayed by the intelligence community and caused one great big partisan brawl. soon, democrats piled on, accusing republicans of racism. >> susan rice's comments didn't send us to iraq and afghanistan. somebody else's did. but you're not angry with them. i would just say in closing that it is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. i have a real issue with that. >> yet when asked about mccain, rice was conciliatory. >> i have great respect for senator mccain and his service to our country. i always have. and i always will. i do think that some of the statements he made about me have been unfounded. but i look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him. >> so, after mccain saying he would
denied al qaeda's lead role in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that cost the lives of ambassador chris stevens and three others and she did so knowing it was true. well, the man who defeated mccain in the 2008 presidential campaign takes this as a personal shot at him. how will he respond? will he name ambassador rice his new secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? will he meet mccain's challenge head on and send rice up to the capitol to go face-to-face with the enemy? tonight we study the battlefield and the firepower of the two sides in this year-ending fire fight. mccain sure wants this fight, but do his fellow republicans? do they want an older white guy taking on the competence of a young woman of color, a rhodes scholar of solid reputation? most important, what end does the president want for this match of fact and wits? i'm joined by michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution and jonathan landay. the intelligence reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. michael, thank you for this. i want to get to the facts. am i right, is the main charge here coming fr
the fall to remove all references to al-qaeda and terrorism from that document. these were the talking points used by susan rice appearances which she blamed the incident on a youtube video. this revelation directly contradicts what clapper's and colleagues and intel community told congress last week. take a look at this. >> that the hearing we had on thursday and friday, we had every leader of the intelligence community there including folks from the state department, the f.b.i., everybody there was asked do you know who made these changes. nobody knew. the only entity that reviewed it was that was not there is the white house. >> so clapper was in the room and refused to take responsibility just last week. now, all of a sudden, that pressure is mounting on the white house and he steps forward to admit culpability. john mccain released a statement quote, this latest episode is why many of us is so frustrated and suspicious of the actions of the administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. still with us is john bolton and liz cheney. you i hate to think that the director of nat
to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al-qaeda has been decimated in her statement here on this program? al-qaeda hasn't been decimated. they're on the rise. they're all over iraq. they're in training camps n libya, they're on the rise everywhere in the middle east. there's a lot of questions we have for embassador rice and she would -- i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said. but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who in a debate with mitt romney, said he had said it was a terrorist attack. he hadn't. that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of attack it was and he continued -- >> chris: he said in an interview with 60 minutes. >> which we didn't see until after the election. i'm sure it was such an inconsequential statement it didn't deserve the attention of the
. for example, she also said al qaeda was decimated. that is pat. ly false. i asked why that statement should be made to the american people and she really had no good answer for it. there was lots of classified information that she gets briefed on that indicated this was not a hateful video that sparked a spontaneous democrat congratulation. i still don't understand why anyone who believe when you come with mortars and rocket propelled grenades how that could possibly be viewed as a spontaneous demonstration. there are a lot of layers to this. >>neil: we tried for ambassador rice and we got a statement from her office, saying we wish that we had perfect information days after the attack. the intelligence often, the assessment has evolved. >>guest: that is another big question, why would it have evolved? there were people who were survivors who were flown to germany who were interviewed by the f.b.i. they told, they said, absolutely, there was no demonstration. yet for a couple of weeks the intelligence community seemed to be wrestling with intelligence and other classified information they h
the highest ranking administration official to link the attacks with al qaeda. you can see john mccain interview tonight at 6:00 p.m. eastern, only on the fox news channel. >>heather: and now from egypt, a teen member of the muslim brotherhood killed in a deadly attack on the headquarters near cairo. this is the party of the egypt's president morsi face unrest after a decision granting himself sweeping new powers. and now, streaming live from cairo, steve, what can you tell us about his planned meeting on monday with his opponent? >>reporter: there are signs that president morsi is trying to reach out to the opponents and will meet on monday with chief justices here in cairo. judges across the country have gone on strike since president morsi's decrease putting himself above the court. he is trying to reach out to the judges perhaps some time to move toward compromise by the president but talks with the opposition leaders with opposition figures still unlikely. many members of the opposition say there will be no dialogue with president morsi until he revokes the decrease. >>heather
the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al qaeda has been decimated? in her statement, here, on this program. al qaeda has not been decimated. they are on the rise. they are all over iraq. training camps are in libya. they are all overseer ye syria on the rise in the middle east and there's a lot of questions for ambassador rice and i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: but you are saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position. just as she said. but, she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who, on -- in a debate with mitt romney, said that he had said it was a terrorist attack and he hadn't and in fact that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of an attack it was and continued to say -- >> he said in an interview with "60 minutes" which we didn't see -- >> didn't see until after the election, i'm sure that it was such an inconsequential st
contradicted that. she also by the way said that al qaeda was disseminated along with ben laden being killed. al qaeda is not disseminated. al qaeda is roaring back in those parts of the middle east. >> bill: isn't she what washington is these day as bureaucrat? she does what she is told. she is a good soldier. she is going to be rewarded by the president with the secretary of state slot because she did his bidding. i think that's what this is, senator. >> i think that may be the view of the president of the united states. but, i think we are all responsible for what we say, particularly in positions of -- positions of responsibility to have all of the facts together before you tell the american people. and, by the way, this is also about the president of the united states who did not tell the people of this country, either did not know or didn't tell people as long as the 25th, two weeks later he was at the u.n., after being on "the view" and letterman saying that they didn't know what -- still saying that this was a hateful video that inspired. >> bill: he still hasn't explained it. he sti
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
under oath in front of congress that he had no idea how the words al-qaeda and other phrases were removed from the talking points that cia prepared and later were reinserted. he said he didn't know how that happened, and he put out a statement earlier this week saying it happened in his shop. those are two totally contradictory things he's saying. gregg: and by the way, it's a crime to lie to congress. but let me move on. the president's news conference last week, he said the people elected him to work with the other side and not to get into partisan fights. but, steve, if he nominates rice to be the next secretary of state, wouldn't that trigger a major partisan fight, and would he really do that when, after all, he's trying to reach a bipartisan deal to avoid the fiscal cliff? >> right. look, i would be surprised if the president put her forward given everything that we've seen. there were one or two scenarios, right? either she was, this was a tryout for her and she failed, or it was the case that they sent her out on purpose as the president suggested when he said they sent ou
there and david petraeus came along and said there are reasons why they took out the al-qaeda stuff from the talking points that rice delivered on the air and i think that argument among the elites is kind of prevailing and i think that it means that if the president does appoint-- i think the confirmation goes quickly. >> not everybody agrees though. maure maureen dowd rights when a gang shows up with rpg's in a place of hot bed sympathizer and extremist training camps. >> it's not over a movie. she should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily hillary was avoiding the talk shows. and the dop diplomate needs to show more sensitivity and independence traits clinton has demonstrated in abundance and obama can do better at state than susan rice. >> and an article called susan rice term -- >> i was disappointing in the president, what she's said about regime change in african and countries and not looking more to her resume'. >> let me pull up a point on racism and sexism business. it never cuts the other way. liberals can criticize conservative african-american as conservative black
explained she was using unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda, still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack, and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn also was told rice tried to clarify to gop senators what she meant was al qaeda's poor leadership has been decimated but gop senators say it is proof rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: ambassador rice, what do you say to republicans who say your comments were politically motivated? rice didn't answer our question but admitted her talking points were, quo, incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstr
questions in the media. he says general petraeus * said the cia knew within 24 hours al qaeda was behind it but susan rice did not use that information on the talk shows saying the siege resulted from a spontaneous protest. last thursday clapper tells one story and now according to his spokesman its is just the opposite. do you think he is not still telling the truth? >> it's hard to know. it's the old quote. i'm not mad you lied to me. i'm mad i can't believe anything you tell me. this is the head our intelligence an changes his mind within 24 hours. today is the 70th day since four our fellow americans were murdered. we are talking about susan rice's career progression and james clapper's ability to keep a fact straight and desperate housewives having an affair with generals. gregg: and four people are dead. we are talking about a tragedy here. murdered by terrorists. in reference to james clapper, one story last week, now a different story. it's a crime to lie to congress. do you think a serious look at that needs to be undertaken by perhaps an independent prosecutor? >> it depends. i
't involved in removing the information on al qaeda. he said the intelligence community made the changes. in responding to this report, mccain admitted that he was wrong, but still took a shot at the white house. he said intelligence officials, quote, told us they did not know who made the changes. now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so suspicious of actions of this administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. meanwhile, his sidekick, lindsey graham, is going into full attack mode. senator graham wrote a letter to president obama on tuesday, saying that he's concerned. many questions remain unanswered on the benghazi attacks. he says the president has a duty to the american people to answer the basic questions surrounding the benghazi attack. so far, all of the right-wing conspiracy theories about the benghazi attack have been completely wrong. it's about time they dropped all of this nonsense and just went back to doing their jobs. let's bring in democratic consultant, tara doudel, and also with
that this was an yak. the intelligence community opted to leave specific reference to al qaeda and terrorism out of her presentation because they didn't want al qaeda to know that we knew what we knew. this is classic investigative philosophy. don't let the suspects know you suspect them. it's clear to me there was no mendacity by susan rice, no incompetence, there was no cover-up by the white house. to continue to argue there was any of that is now tin foil hat stuff. there is also now no will to filibuster to block rice. this is perhaps why john mccain has softened his tone. >> but you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said, but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states. >> that's an end, i hope, to the vicious and baseless character attack that has made rice the center of a witch hunt by the right even though she has done nothing to disqualify herself. mccain tried to make her unnominatable but made it so obama will look weak
interviews saying that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda. what senator ayotte and other senators have said is that was misleading because she knew in a classified way that al qaeda might have been behind it. so that is what one -- two of the reasons why at least senator ayotte said that she is troubled. and she said that she is still not ready to say that she will vote for her. not only that, but she's still -- she still has a threat to block her nomination if susan rice is nominated. >> and is that the end of it, or are there future meetings? is there going to be more consultation, or is that that? >> reporter: no, that is not that. that is the beginning of this for sure. we understand that the ambassador is likely to be back later today for more meetings. ted barrett heard from the republican from tennessee that he has a meeting with susan rice tomorrow. again, just like today's meeting. that was at the request of susan rice. she is definitely making the rounds. she's trying to explain herself. but at least with these three republican senators this morning who were --
on those sunday talk shows. why she did not mention al qaeda, not just that -- because we understand now that she didn't mention it because she was told that that was classified and she was given unclassified talking points and that's what she read from. the bigger question they have, we're told, is why she went further and said that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda and whether or not she said that knowing the classified information, which suggested that al qaeda might have been behind or at least an affiliate of al qaeda might have been behind this attack in benghazi. >> it will be an interesting morning on the hill. >> this is ridiculous. first of all, she wasn't secretary of state. you have critics who don't want to mention secretary of state clinton, didn't want to mention petraeus when it came to the cia. and they want to zero in on somebody who frankly was sent out on television who was not even over the ambassador. >> are we seeing here, basically, the end game on this? will this resolve these issues? do we think that basically we're going to expect to see her nomin
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
! >> stephanie: the original assessment of the benghazi attack was it was carried out by al-qaeda affiliated groups. he said that analysis was taken out after an interagency review in favor of a more general review that they did not tip off terrorists to u.s. knowledge of the matter. we already covered this. general petraeus and now other intelligence officials are just -- you know, making it even clearer. so let's see. john mccain, lindsey graham, blah blah, have accused the white house of stripping for political reasons. the director of the c.i.a. and now current intelligence officials have said no. intelligence agencies changed it not the white house. i don't understand why we're even talking about this still. let's see. he said the intelligence community made substantial analytical changes with the talking points were sent to the government agency, partners for their feedback. there were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community. period. another anonymous official ec
was solely responsible for changes, including stripping out languages about al qaeda. to anyone who is listening, it was clear from general petraeus and others who testified last week that the talking points were amended to protect permission and subject to any political spending. the administration of the attack blamed a video or benghazi being attacked by terrorists. the one james clapper and whether he pressed it on the white house and others in the intelligence community, it is a question of did he do that at the direction of the white house? reporter: they want specifics on this new timeline. comments in response made by lawmakers or calls and e-mails were not responded to. jenna: catherine herridge, thank you so much. jon: the old fiscal cliff is still hanging out there. new perspective on the political implications. the risk for the president as well as democrats if lawmakers do not reach a deal. and it will cost you more to drive over to grandma's house for thanksgiving. plus, it is way beyond your control could make travel even more expensive. all coming up on "happening no
did she say that -- why did she say that -- that al qaeda has been decimated, in her statement here on this program? al qaeda hasn't been decimated. >> they are on the rise, all over iraq. they are training camps, in libbia. they are all over sirria. they are on the rise everywhere in the middle-east. >> eric: could the controversy derail ambassador rice's possible nomination as the next secretary of state? ford and joe, welcome this morning. >> thank you. >> eric: ford, that's your old boss, highly critical of miss rice. she has a long history with the president. do you expect him to nominate her? >> she should get a confrimplation hearing. blaming the intel is a cop-out and the head in the sand defense won't work. why did she allow herself to be a pawn for the administration, when it is clear within hours or a day, erch close to the matter knew it was a terrorist attack, yet, five days later, she went on the sunday shows and said, hey, it's a spontaneous protest, in response to a video. she needs to explain herself. senator mccane's -- mccain's right. susan rice is not the problem
that went to the daily briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. the others gave a different impression, if not contradicting that. like it was a protest. the person who delivered the talking points was susan rice. she said something that i think republicans believe she knew wasn't true. she said it, she must from known it wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic for two reasons. why would she know it wasn't true. >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right. but the point is intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of information that are intentional or can both be true, both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, which seemed like what was the case. so, if you were given one set of talking points that were classified i don't see why -- do you go back to the cia and say you are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here and you want to obscure the fact we know who the terrorists were -- >> this is petraeus' argument at the closed
briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. and then the up classified talking points gave a very different impression. the person who delivered those talking points was susan rice. she said something republicans believe wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic. why would she know it wasn't true? and second of all -- >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right, but the point is, intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of intelligence can be both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, and so if you were given one set of talking points that are classified and then a litter iteration that are unclassified, do you go back to the cia and say you guys are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here, and there are reasons why you would want to obscure the fact that we would know who the terrorists were, if there was -- >> which is petraeus' argument. >> i don't necessarily buy that either. but the point being at the time, the intelligence comm
in benghazi that the intelligence community knew that there were links to al qaeda. as you remember, in five different television appearances, she said there was no evidence that the attack was preplanned. now senator mccain has said she misled the public. ambassador rice says she respect s mccain but that some of his criticisms are unfounded. as cbs news has reported her unclassified talking points were edited by the intelligence community, who removed references to al qaeda, not the white house or the state department, who did that specifically is under review by senate intelligence committee. >> margaret, thank you. >>> president obama meets with small business owners today to promote his solution to the fiscal cliff. the deadline is now 35 days away. the president is holding more events tomorrow and friday. "new york times" reports this morning that a budget deal could reduce the tax deduction millions pay on their mortgage interest. nancy cordes is on capitol hill. good morning. >> reporter: good morning to you, charlie, and norah. the president and house speake
than it was before -- [inaudible] [inaudible] -- an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode is related to the video they created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. at the end of the day we're going to get to the bottom of this, we have to have a system we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just so you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give that information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got that information on 16 september. think about information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give that information, isn't it better to give no information about? my belief is not only is the information that, but i'm more convinced than ever that it was unjustified to get the scenario is presented by ambassador rice and
groups in libya. we did nothing to help them. as a result of that the al qaeda and those affiliated groups have undue influence and the benghazi debacle is a result of that. bill: can we do anything about that when you consider the politics operating internally within these countries? >> in my own mind there is plenty we can do. right now engage in libya and let's get a security force and let's start gaining some control in that country and pushing back on the radicals. let's choose a side on the war taking place in syria and start helping the moderate rebels. even the united kingdom is looking towards doing something like that. why sit on the fence and turn it over to the rad cat islamists and the al qaeda which may be the case. bill: there is a power vacuum in the world. that's clear to see. jack keane, i appreciate your analysis. martha: coming up, a lurid tale of money and murder as a woman goes on trial accused of defriending a jackpot -- befriending a jackpot winner. she conned him out of the money and then she killed them. the drama that's unfolding in court. >> i'm telling y
calls from burma. we have dramatically changed. i can tell you again al-qaeda is on the rise and they're moving throughout the middle east and americans are -- we're going to have to pay a very heavy price for it because of the lack of american leadership. >> you know, michael he mentions kissinger from the '70s. he mentions baker from the '90s burma isn't even what the country is called anymore. is he totally out of touch? >> the last large scale -- the last figure in america who had an impact in israel was bill clinton. he almost got a peace deal. bush didn't do much. condoleezza rice failed to do something. and this is where the obama administration has leaved himself exposed. he never went to israel. i think now is probably not the time to get involved there but i think he's going to have to, in the second term, especially if these incidents show, they're going to try to do some middle east peace deal again. >> yeah, i mean you know, in addition to all of this which is a much more local conversation, we ne
a halt to it. now the president makes phone callscalls from burma? i can tell that you al-qaeda is on the rise and they're moving throughout the middle east, and we'll pay a very heavy price for it because of the lack of american leadership. >> you know michael, he mentions kissinger from the 70s, baker from the 90s and burma, that's not even what the country is called any more. is he totally out of touch. >> the last political figure-to-have any impact in there was clinton. bush didn't do very much. condoleezza rice didn't do very much. he has never been this israel. i think probably is not the time to get involved there. but in the second term, they'll have to continue to show that they're going to do a middle east peace deal again. >> in addition to all of this, which is local conversation, we need to think in a broader sense. there is no moral voice, and until we have that unquestionable moral voice with an honest broker as well as spiritual dimension, this is not going to evolve. >> it does the president see this as an opportunity to be the moral voice that tricia talked ab
pickings from the political grapevine. teaching the boston tea party and terrorism and same day as al-qaeda. and teachers are instructed to read this report and it just happened in the last hour. and a local militia attacked the privacy of citizens at the port and no one was injured, but a large quantity of merchandise considered to be valuable to owners and loathsome to the perpetrators was destroyed. the terrorists, apparently intoxicated were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens to harbor the fugitives to conceal their identities. and they believe it's by the occupying government. and trying to determine mo the terrorists are and where that event happened. and chicago mayor rahm emanuel is looking at ways for moms and dads to show up at parents-teachers conferences, they're offering a reward showing up at 70 schools. los angeles times in calling the card a bribe, says, is it what it's come to, the only way to get parents to fulfill their basic responsibilities is with a financial incentive? walgreen's is picking up the tabs hoping to encourage more shopping in it
three weeks before an election. >>reporter: the talking points that stripped out language including al qaeda, senators say she has classified material that showed evidence of terrorists. >> when you have a position of ambassador to the united nations you go classified talking points in your responsibility for the job. >>reporter: and her meeting this afternoon with senator lieberman, chair of the homeland security who is running their own investigation. >>shepard: what are the white house and ambassador rice saying? >>reporter: after the meeting she put out a statement which reads in part and i quote, "we explained the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi." the white house briefing spokesman carney minimized the impact of her statements on the sunday talk shows and he turned the focus on to the importance of finding who was responsible. >> people are more interested in talking points to a sunday show several months ago than they are i
that changed the talking points, that removed the reference to al-qaeda, and he had a reason for it in the meeting. he said it was because they didn't want to hurt an ongoing criminal investigation, and now later today the cia came out and said, well, he misspoke. so it's now the fourth or fifth iteration of who changed the talking points, which isn't something that happens when you're actually telling the truth. >> sean: this is the problem susan rice has and the white house has, is if david petraeus knew instantly, and charlie lamb says that the state department was watching this in real time, and they were getting reports on the ground, calls for help to the cia annex, and the libyan president, all of these things happened within 24 hours, there's no justification at all to go blame a youtube video. if their explanation is, well, we didn't want to jump the gun, then they couldn't jump the gun on that excuse either. so that doesn't fly. >> right. >> i'm not surprised by what they said after this meeting. >> it's clear they don't have an answer, because if they had an answer
amended it to say or it could have been about the movie. >> they certainly didn't want to say al-qaeda, hamas or hezbollah. they didn't want to blame someone early. here is the white house defending their position, the spokesperson president press briefing. >> there are no unanswered questions about ambassador rice's appearance on sundays shows and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community. those questions have been answered. >> cenk: yeah, look, again i'm not putting it on susan rice. someone changed the talking points. john mccain is on with her on that same face the nation says no way it's a terrorist attack, it was coordinated. >> they had the talking points and went against them. you're with the three amigos, you're the fourth amigo. >> cenk: let's go on to something different. touree. >> old white establishment folks wrongly and repeatedly attacking a much younger black woman moments after an election in which blacks and women strongly went blue. >> cenk: do you think this has anything to do with rice' gender or race?
, that there are no unanswered questions. the senators saying this morning the acting c.i.a. director morell told them the al-qaeda references were dropped in the c.i.a. talking points at the request of the f.b.i. because the bureau did not want to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. but late this afternoon, c.i.a. officials called to correct the record, that it was actually them. rice met with senator joe lieberman who asked if she was coached by the add f before her talk hoe appearances. >> she said no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house prior to her appearance on those sound morning shows. >> so the meeting today did not settle the matter. it certainly is not as far as these republicans are concerned. >> shepard: what's the response from the administration? >> in that written statement, rice who was joined by the acting c.i.a. director on the hill, said, quote, we explained the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in the key respect there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. also at
it in themselves to soften. here is the thing the way i understand it. they pulled al-qaeda out of the talking points and pulled the protest out of the talking points and she still went with it. she still went with it and told the american people everything she was told to say. >> bob: learn how the process works. c.i.a. is one of a number of intelligence agencies that put talk points. they didn't have the agre agreement. she got factual in their view, intelligence community view of what happened. she gave it to the sunday talk show. she made a mistake and said she made a mistak miswhat more u ask for? do you think he is went up and there purposefully lied? >> brian: shouldn't you do your research? >> andrea: yes. she knew there were conflicting accounts. why push anyone from the administration out to say anything at all. she should have done her research. maybe she is not a liar. maybe she is incatch tent. one thing that the senator trying to block you. it was great what mccain did. getting the heat. and republicans were being sexist. and let me give her a fair shake. john bolton was up for a
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 74 (some duplicates have been removed)